Problem about Fermat numbers and order of an element

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter demonelite123
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Element Numbers
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the properties of Fermat numbers, specifically the order of the element 2 modulo a prime that divides a Fermat number. Participants explore the implications of the order of 2 in relation to Fermat numbers and seek to establish conditions under which certain congruences hold.

Discussion Character

  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Homework-related
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • One participant states that if a prime p divides the nth Fermat number Fn, then it follows that \(2^{2^{n+1}} \equiv 1 \mod p\), leading to the conclusion that \(ord_p(2) | 2^{n+1}\).
  • Another participant suggests that to show \(ord_p(2) = 2^{n+1}\), it must be demonstrated that \(2^{2^{n+1}} \equiv 2^{2^k} \mod p\) for some k implies a contradiction.
  • A participant points out that \(2^{2^{n+1}-2^k}\) can be expressed as a product of powers of 2, indicating that if \(2^{2^k} \equiv 1 \mod p\), then further simplifications could lead to finding a contradiction.
  • One participant acknowledges a mistake in their reasoning regarding the implications of successive squares of \(2^{2^k}\) being congruent to 1, which contradicts the earlier established congruence \(2^{2^n} \equiv -1 \mod p\).
  • A later reply confirms that the initial reasoning was helpful in reaching a conclusion, despite the earlier confusion.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express uncertainty and engage in exploration without reaching a consensus on the final steps to prove the order of 2. There are indications of agreement on certain properties, but the discussion remains unresolved regarding the specific contradictions needed to finalize the proof.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the importance of careful handling of congruences and the implications of assumptions regarding the order of elements. There are unresolved aspects related to the conditions under which certain congruences hold true.

demonelite123
Messages
216
Reaction score
0
Let Fn = 22n + 1 be the nth Fermat number and suppose that p|Fn, where p is a prime (possibly Fn itself). Show that [itex]2^{2^{n+1}} \equiv 1 (mod p)[/itex] so that [itex]ord_p(2)|2^{n+1}[/itex]. Use this to show that [itex]ord_p(2) = 2^{n+1}[/itex].

So far i have shown that [itex]2^{2^{n+1}} \equiv 1 (mod p)[/itex] so that [itex]ord_p(2)|2^{n+1}[/itex]. But what I'm having trouble showing now is that 2n+1 is the smallest possible number k such that [itex]2^k \equiv 1 (mod p)[/itex]. I know that the order of 2 must be some power of 2 so I have tried to use a contradiction argument assuming that there exists a 2k such that [itex]2^{2^k} \equiv 1 (mod p)[/itex]. then i have [itex]2^{2^{n+1}} \equiv 2^{2^k} (mod p)[/itex] so [itex]2^{2^{n+1}-2^k} \equiv 1 (mod p)[/itex]. but i can't seem to find a contradiction.

can someone give me some hints to continue? thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
[itex]2^{2^{n+1}-2^k} = 2^{\left(2^k + 2^{k+1} + 2^{k+2} + ... + 2^n\right)} = 2^{2^k} \cdot 2^{2^{k+1}} \cdot 2^{2^{k+2}} \cdot ~...~ \cdot 2^{2^n}[/itex], but [itex]2^{2^k}[/itex] was 1 modulo p... See if you can unwind the whole thing to get [itex]2^{2^{k+1}} \equiv 1 \pmod p[/itex], at which point you can find your contradiction.

Be careful, however (you probably know this already), with arguments that cancel something on both sides of a congruency. [itex]10 \equiv 6 \pmod 4[/itex], but [itex]5 \not\equiv 3 \pmod 4[/itex]. What you cancel out in your case are expressions congruent to 1 mod p, which, since they are 1 multiplying something, can be removed.
 
i think i know how to continue the problem. thanks for your reply!
 
Oops... I used a neat trick to conclude something stupid. Sorry, it was Sunday. :)

Successive squares of [itex]2^{2^k}[/itex] will also be congruent to 1, which contradicts the initial statement that [itex]2^{2^n} \equiv -1 \pmod p[/itex] (since p has to be odd to divide Fn).
 
ah yes that is what i have concluded as well. your first post still helped me to come to fact though!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
6K
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
1K
Replies
16
Views
3K